Is it a good idea to warm up cache in the BEGIN block, when it gets used?
You didn't really provide any information on what kind of environment you're talking about, which I think is important. In most cases the answer is probably "no", but I can think of one case where it's a definite yes, which is preforking servers -- web applications and the like. In that case, any work that you can do "before the fork" not only saves the cost of having the children recompute the same values individually, it alo saves memory, since the pages containing the results can be shared across all of the child processes by the OS's COW mechanism.
If you're talking about a module you're writing and not an application, then I'd say no, don't lift things to compilation time without the user's permission unless they're things that have to be done for the module to work. Instead, provide a preheat_cache class method, and if your caller has a reason to need a hot cache at compile time they can put the call into a BEGIN block themselves. You could also use a :preheat_cache import tag but that's unnecessarily fancy in my book.
If it's a choice between preloading your cache at compile time, or preloading your cache as the first thing you do at run time, there's virtually no difference.
If your cache is large enough that loading it will trigger a lot of page swaps, that's an argument for waiting until run time. That way, all your module loading and other compile time code can be done while your system is under a lighter load.
I'm going to go with "no", even though I could be wrong. Reasoning goes like this: keep the code, and data it uses, small, so that it takes up less space in any caches (I am presuming you mean CPU cache, not programmatic hashes with common query results or some such thing).
Unless you see some sort of bad access pattern, trying to second guess what needs to be prefetched is probably useless at best. In fact such code or initialization data is likely to displace something you (or another process on the system) were actually using. Think about what you can do in the actual work part of the code to maximize locality of reference, to try to stay within smaller memory regions at any one time.
I used to use "top" to detect when processes were swapping between memory and disk. I don't know of any good tools yet to tell how often a process is getting cache misses and going to plain old slow mo'board memory. There must be such tools, I just don't know what they are yet (software tools, rather than some custom In Circuit Emulator type hardware). Perhaps some thought on this earlier in the day...
by warm up I assume you mean use BEGIN() to guarantee the cache is preloaded before anything else in your script executes?
If you need the cache for your program to run properly, then yes, I think it would be a good idea.
Related
So, I've reviewed a ton of articles and forums before posting this, but I keep reading conflicting answers. Firstly, OS is not an issue, I can use either Windows or Unix, whatever would be best for my problem. I have a ton of data that I need to use for read-only purposes (not sure why this would matter, but, in case it does, the data structure that I'm going to have to go through is an array of arrays of arrays of hashes whose values are also arrays). I'm essentially comparing a "query" to a ton of different "sentences" and computing their relative similarities. From these quantities (several million), I want to take the top x% and do something with them. I need to parallelize this process. There's just no good way for me to decrease the space--I need to compare over everything to get good results and it will just take too long with some sort of threading/forking. Again, I've seen many conflicting answers and don't know which one to do.
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.
EDIT: I don't think the amount of memory usage will be an issue, but I don't know (8 GB RAM)
Without more detail on your problem, there's not much help that can be given. You want to parallelize a process. Threads and forks in Perl have advantages and disadvantages.
One of the key things that makes Perl threads different from other threads is that data is not shared by default. This makes threads much easier and safer to work with, you don't have to worry about thread safety of libraries or most of your code, just the threaded bit. However it can be a performance drag and memory hungry as Perl must put a copy of the interpreter and all loaded modules into each thread.
When it comes to forking I will only be talking about Unix. Perl emulates fork on Windows using threads, it works but it can be slow and buggy.
Forking Advantages
Very fast to create a fork
Very robust
Forking Disadvantages
Communicating between the processes can be slow and awkward
Thread Advantages
Thread coordination and data interchange is fairly easy
Threads are fairly easy to use
Thread Disadvantages
Each thread takes a lot of memory
Threads can be slow to start
Threads can be buggy (better the more recent your perl)
Database connections are not shared across threads
That last one is a bit of a doozy if the documentation is up to date. If you're going to be doing a lot of SQL, don't use threads.
In general, to get good performance out of Perl threads it's best to start a pool of threads and reuse them. Forks can more easily be created, used and discarded.
Really what it comes down to is what fits your way of thinking and your particular problem.
For either case, you're likely going to want something to manage your pool of workers. For forking you're going to want to use Parallel::ForkManager or Child. Child is particularly nice as it has built in inter-process communication.
For threads you're going to want to use threads::shared, Thread::Queue and read perlthrtut.
When reading articles about Perl threads, keep in mind they were a bit crap when they were introduced in 5.8.0 in 2002, and only serviceable by 5.10.1. After that they've firmed up considerably. Information and opinions about their efficiency and robustness tends to fall rapidly out of date.
Threading can be more difficult to get correct, but won't utilize as much memory.
Forking can be simpler to implement but use a significant amount of memory.
If you don't have experience with either, I would start by implemented a forking version & go from there.
I have to deliver an application as a standalone Matlab executable to a client. The code include a series of calls to a function that internally creates several cell arrays.
My problem is that an out-of-memory error happens when the number of calls to this function increases in response to the increase in the user load. I guess this is low-level memory fragmentation as the workspace variables are independent from the number of loops.
As mentioned here, quitting and restarting Matlab is the only solution for this type of out-of-memory errors at the moment.
My question is that how I can implement such a mechanism in a standalone application to save data, quit and restart itself in the case of out-of-memory error (or when high likelihood of such an error is predicted somehow).
Is there any best practice available?
Thanks.
This is a bit of a tough one. Instead of looking to restart to clear things out, could you change the code to break the work in to chunks to make it more efficient? Fragmentation is mostly proportional to the peak cell-related memory usage and how much the size of data items varies, and less to the total usage over time. If you can break a large piece of work in to smaller pieces done in sequence, this can lower the "high water mark" of your fragmented memory usage. You can also save on memory usage by using "flyweight" data structures that share their backing data values, or sometimes converting to cell-based structures to reference objects or numeric codes. Can you share an example of your code and data structure with us?
In theory, you could get a clean slate by saving your workspace and relevant state out to a mat file and having the executable launch another instance of itself with an option to reload that state and proceed, and then having the original executable exit. But that's going to be pretty ugly in terms of user experience and your ability to debug it.
Another option would be to offload the high-fragmentation code in to another worker process which could be killed and restarted, while the main executable process survives. If you have the Parallel Computation Toolbox, which can now be compiled in to standalone Matlab executables, this would be pretty straightforward: open a worker pool of one or two workers, and run the fraggy code inside them using synchronous calls, periodically killing the workers and bringing up new ones. The workers are independent processes which start out with non-fragmented memory spaces. If you don't have PCT, you could roll your own by compiling your application as two separate apps - the driver app and worker app - and have the main app spin up a worker and control it via IPC, passing your data back and forth as MAT files or bytestreams. That's not going to be a lot of fun to code, though.
Perhaps you could also push some of the fraggy code down in to the Java layer, which handles cell-like data structures more gracefully.
Changing the code to be less fraggy in the first place is probably the simpler and easier approach, and results in a less complicated application design. In my experience it's often possible. If you share some code and data structure details, maybe we can help.
Another option is to periodically check for memory fragmentation with a function like chkmem.
You could integrate this function to be called silently from you code each couple of iterations, or use a timer object to have it called every X minutes...
The idea is to use thse undocumented functions feature memstats and feature dumpmem to get the largest free memory blocks available in addition to the largest variables currently allocated. Using that you could make a guess if there is a sign of memory fragmentation.
When detected, you would warn the user and instruct them you how to save their current session (export to MAT-file), restart the app, and restore the session upon restart.
I have a ADO.NET/TSQL performance question. We have two options in our application:
1) One big database call with multiple result sets, then in code step through each result set and populate my objects. This results in one round trip to the database.
2) Multiple small database calls.
There is much more code reuse with Option 2 which is an advantage of that option. But I would like to get some input on what the performance cost is. Are two small round trips twice as slow as one big round trip to the database, or is it just a small, say 10% performance loss? We are using C# 3.5 and Sql Server 2008 with stored procedures and ADO.NET.
I would think it in part would depend on when you need the data. For instance if you return ten datasets in one large process, and see all ten on the screen at once, then go for it. But if you return ten datasets and the user may only click through the pages to see three of them then sending the others was a waste of server and network resources. If you return ten datasets but the user really needs to see sets seven and eight only after making changes to sets 5 and 6, then the user would see the wrong info if you returned it too soon.
If you use separate stored procs for each data set called in one master stored proc, there is no reason at all why you can't reuse the code elsewhere, so code reuse is not really an issue in my mind.
It sounds a wee bit obvious, but only send what you need in one call.
For example, we have a "getStuff" stored proc for presentation. The "updateStuff" proc calls "getStuff" proc and the client wrapper method for "updateStuff" expects type "Thing". So one round trip.
Chatty servers are one thing you prevent up front with minimal effort. Then, you can tune the DB or client code as needed... but it's hard to factor out the roundtrips later no matter how fast your code runs. In the extreme, what if your web server is in a different country to your DB server...?
Edit: it's interesting to note the SQL guys (HLGEM, astander, me) saying "one trip" and the client guys saying "multiple, code reuse"...
I am struggling with this problem myself. And I don't have an answer yet, but I do have some thoughts.
Having reviewed the answers given by others to this point, there is still a third option.
In my appllication, around ten or twelve calls are made to the server to get the data I need. Some of the datafields are varchar max and varbinary max fields (pictures, large documents, videos and sound files). All of my calls are synchronous - i.e., while the data is being requested, the user (and the client side program) has no choice but to wait. He may only want to read or view the data which only makes total sense when it is ALL there, not just partially there. The process, I believe, is slower this way and I am in the process of developing an alternative approach which is based on asynchronous calls to the server from a DLL libaray which raises events to the client to announce the progress to the client. The client is programmed to handle the DLL events and set a variable on the client side indicating chich calls have been completed. The client program can then do what it must do to prepare the data received in call #1 while the DLL is proceeding asynchronously to get the data of call #2. When the client is ready to process the data of call #2, it must check the status and wait to proceed if necessary (I am hoping this will be a short or no wait at all). In this manner, both server and client side software are getting the job done in a more efficient manner.
If you're that concerned with performance, try a test of both and see which performs better.
Personally, I prefer the second method. It makes life easier for the developers, makes code more re-usable, and modularizes things so changes down the road are easier.
I personally like option two for the reason you stated: code reuse
But consider this: for small requests the latency might be longer than what you do with the request. You have to find that right balance.
As the ADO.Net developer, your job is to make the code as correct, clear, and maintainable as possible. This means that you must separate your concerns.
It's the job of the SQL Server connection technology to make it fast.
If you implement a correct, clear, maintainable application that solves the business problems, and it turns out that the database access is the major bottleneck that prevents the system from operating within acceptable limits, then, and only then, should you start persuing ways to fix the problem. This may or may not include consolidating database queries.
Don't optimize for performance until a need arisess to do so. This means that you should analyze your anticipated use patterns and determine what the typical frequency of use for this process will be, and what user interface latency will result from the present design. If the user will receive feedback from the app is less than a few (2-3) seconds, and the application load from this process is not an inordinate load on server capacity, then don't worry about it. If otoh the user is waiting an unacceptable amount of time for a response (subjectve but definitiely measurable) or if the server is being overloaded, then it's time to begin optimization. And then, which optimization techniques will make the most sense, or be the most cost effective, depend on what your analysis of the issue tells you.
So, in the meantime, focus on maintainability. That means, in your case, code reuse
Personally I would go with 1 larger round trip.
This will definately be influenced by the exact reusability of the calling code, and how it might be refactored.
But as mentioned, this will depend on your exact situation, where maintainability vs performance could be a factor.
i had a discussion with a coworker about the architecture of a program i'm writing and i'd like some more opinions.
The Situation:
The Program should update at near-realtime (+/- 1 Minute).
It involves the movement of objects on a coordinate system.
There are some events that occur at regular intervals (i.e. creation of the objects).
Movements can change at any time through user input.
My solution was:
Build a server that runs continously and stores the data internally.
The server dumps a state-of-the-program at regular intervals to protect against powerfailures and/or crashes.
He argued that the program requires a Database and i should use cronjobs to update the data. I can store movement information by storing startpoint, endpoint and speed and update the position in the cronjob (and calculate collisions with other objects there) by calculating direction and speed.
His reasons:
Requires more CPU & Memory because it runs constantly.
Powerfailures/Crashes might destroy data.
Databases are faster.
My reasons against this are mostly:
Not very precise as events can only occur at full minutes (wouldn't be that bad though).
Requires (possibly costly) transformation of data on every run from relational data to objects.
RDBMS are a general solution for a specialized problem so a specialized solution should be more efficient.
Powerfailures (or other crashes) can leave the Data in an undefined state with only partially updated data unless (possibly costly) precautions (like transactions) are taken.
What are your opinions about that?
Which arguments can you add for any side?
Databases are not faster. How silly... How can a database be faster than writing a custom data structure and storing it in memory ?? Databases are Generalized tools to persist data to disk for you so you don't have to write all the code to do that yourself. Because they have to address the needs of numerous disparate (and sometimes inconsistent) business functions (Persistency (Durability), Transactional integrity, caching, relational integrity, atomicity, etc. etc. ) and do it in a way that protects the application developer from having to worry about it so much, by definition it is going to be slower. That doesn't necessarilly mean his conclusion is wrong however.
Each of his other objections can be addressed by writing the code to address that issue yourself... But you see where that is going... At some point, the development efforts of writing the custom code to address the issues that are important for your application outweigh the performance hit of just using a database - which already does all that stuff out of the box... How many of these issues are important ? and do you know how to write the code necessary to address them ?
From what you've described here, I'd say your solution does seem to be the better option. You say it runs once a minute, but how long does it take to run? If only a few seconds, then the transformation to relational data would likely be inconsequential, as would any other overhead. most of this would take likely 30 seconds. This is assuming, again, that the program is quite small.
However, if it is larger, and assuming that it will get larger, doing a straight dump is a better method. You might not want to do a full dump every run, but that's up to you, just remember that it could wind up taking a lot of space (same goes if you're using a database).
If you're going to dump the state, you would need to have some sort of a redundancy system in place, along with quasi-transactions. You would want to store several copies, in case something happens to the newest version. Say, the power goes out while you're storing, and you have no backups beyond this half-written one. Transactions, you would need something to tell that the file has been fully written, so if something does go wrong, you can always tell what the most recent successful save was.
Oh, and for his argument of it running constantly: if you have it set to a cronjob, or even a self-enclosed sleep statement or similar, it doesn't use any CPU time when it's not running, the same amount that it would if you're using an RDBMS.
If you're writing straight to disk, then this will be the faster method over a database, and faster retrieval, since, as you pointed out, there is no overhead.
Summary: A database is a good idea if you have a lot of idle processor time or historical records, but if resources are a legitimate concern, then it can become too much overhead and a dump with precautions taken is better.
mySQL can now model spatial data.
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/4.1/en/gis-introduction.html
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/spatial-extensions.html
You could use the database to keep track of world locations, user locations, items locations ect.
I need to improve the throughput of the system.
The usual cycle of optimization has been done and we have already achieved 1.5X better throughput.
I am now beginning to wonder if I can utilize the cachegrind output to improve the system's throughput.
Can somebody point me to how to begin on this?
What I understand is we need to ensure most frequently used data should be kept small enough so that it remains in L1 cache and the next set of data should fit in the L2.
Is this the right direction I am taking?
It`s true that cachegrind output in itself does not give too much information how to go about optimizing code. One needs to know how to interpret it and what you are saying about data fitting into L1 and L2 is indeed the right direction.
To fully understand how memory access patterns influence performance, I recommend reading an excellent paper "What Every Programmer Should Know About Memory" by Ulrich Drepper, the GNU libc maintainer.
If you're having trouble parsing the cachegrind output, look into KCacheGrind (it should be available in your distro of choice). I use it and find it quite helpful.
According to the Cachegrind documentation, the details given to you by cachegrind are the number of cache misses for a given part of your code. You need to know about how caches work on the architecture you are targetting so that you know how to fix the code. In practice this means making data smaller or changing the access pattern of some data so that cached data is still in the cache. However you need to understand your program's data and data access before you can act on the information. As it says in the manual,
In short, Cachegrind can tell you where some of the bottlenecks in your code are, but it can't tell you how to fix them. You have to work that out for yourself. But at least you have the information!
1.5x is a nice speedup. It means you found something that took 33% of the time that you could get rid of. I bet you can do more, even before you get down to low-level issues like data memory cache. This is an example of how. Basically, you could have additional performance problems (and opportunities for speedup) that were not large before, like 25% say. Well, with the 1.5x speedup, that 25% is now 37.5%, so it is "worth more" than it was. Often such a problem is in the form of some mid-stack function call that is requesting work that, once you know how much it costs, you may decide isn't completely necessary. Since kcachegrind does not really pinpoint these, you may not realize it is a problem.